To be Issued in Hindi
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00961 dated 3-12-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant: Shri Chander Bhan Verma
Respondent: Election Commission of India (ECI)
FACTS
By an application of 16-7-2007 Shri Chander Bhan Verma of Nirala
Nagar, Lucknow applied to the CPIO, Election Commission of India seeking
the following information:
“As per the provisions of RTI Act 2005 please provide me the
information that what action has been taken on my letter No.
367, dated 26-5-2007. A copy of letter No. 367 dated 1-5-07 for
your reference.”
To this he received a response dated 17-8-2007 from Shri S.R. Kar,
Under Secretary and CPIO as follows:
“In response to your letter No. 315/07 of 16-7-07 I have to inform
you that your letter of 26-5-07 could not be traced in the
Commission.”
Shri S.R. Kar also disputed the validity of the Postal Order dated 7-12-
06 attached with the application. In the meantime, however, Shri Chander
Bhan Verma had already moved a complaint before the State Information
Commissioner, U.P. on 16-8-07 with the following prayer:
“Please tell me what action has been taken on my letter of
26-5-2007.”
This complaint was forwarded by the State Chief Information
Commissioner U.P. on the very day to this Commission.
The complaint was admitted in this Commission and noticed issued on
12-5-09 to the ECI. Subsequent to moving his complaint before the UPSIC
Shri Chander Bhan Verma moved a representation addressed to Shri
Gopalaswami, Chief Election Commissioner of India dated 13-10-2008
1
disputing the ECI’s stand on the validity of IPO. This was treated as a first
appeal by the ECI who sent a response of 23-12-08 addressed to Shri
Chander Bhan Verma by Shri J.K. Rao, Under Secretary. In this letter Shri
Rao informed the appellant Shri Chander Bhan Verma as follows:
“I am directed to say that the information sought by you is not in
existence, as such the same is not covered within the meaning of
information under section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
You have given suggestions and have not sought any information.”
Subsequent to this order of the ECI Shri Chander Bhan Verma has not
moved any appeal or complaint before this Commission. In the meantime, in
response to our complaint notice, by his letter of 22-5-09 Shri A.N. Das, Under
Secretary and PIO, ECI submitted the following information in which he has
concluded as follows:
“In this connection, it may be stated that although the
information whichever available in the Commission’s record had
already been intimated to the complainant vide the CPIO’s letter
dated 17.8.2007 within the stipulated time frame of 30 days, the
further action taken after the complainant letter dated
13.10.2008 was in good faith. Accordingly, it may be stated that
the allegation made by the litigant under his complaint dated
16.8.2007 to the CIC is baseless.”
Together with this Shri Das has enclosed copies of the complete
correspondence with appellant Shri Chander Bhan Verma including the note
file which discusses the validity of the IPO and agreed to accept it. The
complaint was heard by video-conference on 1-7-2009. The following are
present:
Appellant (at NIC Studio, Lucknow)
Shri Chander Bhan Verma,Respondents (at CIC chambers, Delhi)
Shri A.N. Das, Under Secretary
Shri A. K. Bhatnagar, SO.
Complainant Shri Chander Bhan Verma submitted that even if
respondent had not received the original application of 26.5.’07, they did
2
receive the RTI application with which the original application was attached.
Therefore, CPIO’s response was incorrect. Besides, in the decision in appeal
dated 23-12-08 the PIO stated that the information sought does not exist
whereas it has been sent together with the RTI application. He, however,
submitted that he had not received the letter of 22-5-09 in response to our
complaint notice a copy of which we find has, in fact, been endorsed to him.
Shri A.N. Das on the other hand submitted that in response to the
appellant’s letter of 13-10-08 a letter had been sent on 22/23-12-08 in which it
was sought to answer his questions in terms of existing Election Laws.
DECISION NOTICE
Having heard the parties and examined the records we find that the
complaint before us at present is that forwarded to us by SCIC UP, with
regard to not having received a reply from respondents ECI. Complainant
Shri Chander Bhan Verma had moved no appeal other than this complaint to
the UPSIC, which at any rate had no jurisdiction. His reference to the
response of 22/23-12-08 has no merit since he has moved no complaint or
appeal against this response. Nevertheless, a copy of the response received
from the ECI vide their letter of 22-5-09 will be sent once more to appellant
together with all its enclosures by PIO Shri A.N. Das within one week of
receipt of this decision notice treating this as a response to his original
application. If not satisfied with this response, however, Shri Chander Bhan
Verma is free to move an appeal u/s 19 (1) before the 1st Appellate Authority
of Election Commission of India who is directed to treat such an application if
received as a first appeal under the Act condoning the delay in the context of
receipt of these orders by complainant Shri Chander Bhan Verma. If still not
satisfied with the response it will be open to Shri Chander Bhan Verma to
make a second appeal before this Commission under sub Section 3 of
3
Section 19. The present complaint being without substance is, however,
dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
1-7-2009
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
1-7-2009
4